Not for me either, as it would make me feel too voluminous. I wear a lot of tunics over leggings though.

I agree. It’s not flattering even on the models.

I would think it is quite unflattering, like the first and the last pics. She is a column, and appears the same width head to toe. You need to taper somewhere .. the waist, the legs. somewhere. I'd also think the dress may not fall right, get sort of "stuck" on the pants.

The only one that i think looks "ok" is the skinny shorter jeans under the red dress.

Daisy, can you explain more why you like this look on yourself? Does it really flatter your body?

It's nothing new.

It is not a look I care for. I have never been a fan of leggings under a dress either.

This was my early university life! at that time it was a huge trend among the alternative (post-grunge) crowd. It is friggin comfortable in cold climates. I’m basically potato shaped right now so it wouldn’t be a good look but I’d definitely rock it around the house. Maybe jeggings would be a way to get the look without the silhouette issues.

No, for me. It reminds me winters in Ukraine when I was a kid..cold, so my Mom insisted on me wearing warm trousers(with tights under too) under school uniform-which was a brown dress.

(and black apron. White apron on holidays. Uniforms depended on a republic..I don't know why ours went with this unflattering thing.)

I had a short hair. Many confused me for a boy. It was quite entertaining I must say. Very amusing. I was very boyish too back then. But it's just too many layers and I always waited tor spring..

Now, dresses and tunics with leggings, I like. Very comfy.

If it's not comfy(and I realize everybody's "comfy" is very different)-I'm not wearing it.

Well, I guess I don't have to worry about the look becoming overly trendy ;-)

Good point, robo. It could be my basic instincts kicking in since it is below freezing here for a good 6 or 7 months of the year.

I am not entirely sure it is flattering on me. I just like the way it looks more than just a dress. I'm relatively tall (5'7"), but have a long torso, short legs and a neck like a giraffe (unbalanced?). I used to be on the slim side, but am now more pear-ish. The only dress/skirt silhouette I have ever felt comfortable in is a straight cut pencil skirt that comes all the way to mid calf.

This reminds me of grade school living in North Dakota and wearing pants under our dresses to get to school and back. We did not leave them on in school however!

It reminds me a bit of this Life Magazine from 1961, which I have in storage somewhere.

Dress over pants is better (to me) than the Martha Teichner look. Those quilted coats she wears are never flattering to her - she seems to me to be the archetypal anti-fashion spokesperson. I realize she is dressing for comfort, which is fine if you are not on TV.

Did you mean dress over pants? I don’t see any pants over dress, which would be very strange! 😂

That look was popular back in the ‘60s. Short dress over wide pants. It looked good on those of us who were young, thin and cute. I think the look now is okay if the pants are very narrow, or as others have said, jeggings. I guess I’d rather wear some comfie pants under a dress than pantyhose. Altogether, it’s a look not many can carry off without looking like a bag lady.

Ida, i love those looks. They are different though, in that they are more like a long jacket. IE, you could not wear any of those as just a dress w/o pants.

My fave look is that long jackety look with a mini dress. Kinda like this but I've seen much better versions.

Did you mean dress over pants? I don’t see any pants over dress, which would be very strange! 😂

When I saw the thread title I thought the same thing! Pants over dress would be pretty lumpy.

Oh, for gosh sakes. I'm going to blame that on my cold medicine. Pants over dress would really do nothing for my pear shapedness.

When my daughter was little, she like dresses, but I always had her wear pants, legging, or shorts underneath so she wouldn't have to suffer the oppression of having to be ladylike in a dress. My mom just didn't get it at all and thought it was weird.

I occasionally wear leggings under dresses (for warmth or because the dress is shorter than I prefer), but I think actual pants or jeans would be too bulky. I really don't need more bulk on my lower body.

I mostly wear dresses or skirts sans pants or leggings.

Actually, I kind of like it, if it looks right on the person. I'm not fond of my leg shape, so anything that hides/disguises them is of interest.

From Closetfullofclothes.com

Just can't like this look at all. Reminds me too much of when I was in the first grade (so very many years ago) and the temperature dropped to below freezing and there was a bit of snow. My mom and dad made me wear a pair of pants under my dress when I walked to school (all kids walked to school in those days, no matter the weather) so I could stay a little warmer. The kids made so much fun of me (girls did not wear pants to school in those days). I was so humiliated and swore I would never wear such an outfit again. Just thinking about it makes me shudder.

I kind of l like this, but I also wore the pants under the school uniform to walk to school.

Mtn, that style is something of a thing for prom this year...Sherri Hill’s Spring 2020 line has several similar.

Yeah, I have seen some very sharp looking ladies wearing a dress/tunic style over tight pants ( or leggings ) and I thought it looked pretty good. Almost like maybe wearing tights? But the wider leg pants with a dress or skirt really do not look good to me.

Oh edited to add THAT is funny Bunny!

I have been thinking of moving toward that look, kind of like a tunic over pants. But it has to be done right, The dress has to be the right style and the pants probably slim and tapered. I never can get a look right, so I’ll just stick with jeans or slacks and a long sweater.

This reminds me of how we wore shorts beneath our dresses up until about sixth grade, horrified at the thought of anyone glimpsing our PANTIES. If you didn't do so, you were a creature to be avoided at all costs.

You definitely had to wear shorts under your dress in elementary school. How else could you hang upside down on the monkey bars? 🙊

Oh, yes, shorts under our dresses! Back when we couldn’t wear pants to school. When I was in 7th grade, one snowstorm kept the buses from running but school was open. We put on pants (because by that age we wouldn’t be caught dead in snow pants): walked the mile and a half to school in the snow (no, not uphill both ways lol this is Illinois after all). There was no going back to the “no slacks for girls” rule after that, although it wasn’t until a year or so later that we’d wear jeans to school. Ah, the 70s.

Anyway, I’d love to wear this style, kurti I think it’s called (but I’m sure I’d be accused of co-opting some ethnicity) This is a little dressy, but there are more everyday styles, with slimmer pants, as well.

,

In second grade, we were doing some class exercise in which all the boys lined up facing all the girls. I had to run to the restroom, and then ran back to my place in line. All of the boys were laughing and pointing at me ... I’d been in such a hurry, my dress was partly tucked into my panties. Had I understood what the Witness Protection program was at that age, I’d have asked to go in it.

Ida, I hope you’re happy making me re-live that!

😂

You definitely had to wear shorts under your dress in elementary school. How else could you hang upside down on the monkey bars? 🙊

I am mortified remembering that in 1956, when I was in 5th grade and spent all recess with my friends hanging from the horizontal bars like bats, we didn't wear extra clothing over our unmentionables. In those days girls had to wear dresses and everything just fell down over our heads.

I don’t remember wearing shorts under dresses in elementary school either, but I do remember that starting in 2nd grade, we were allowed to wear pants instead of dresses, and I embraced that with abandon, much to the chagrin of my mother.

Our neighbors on both sides are Indian and when they dress to go out, they are a sight to behold. One sunny Saturday I was outside detailing my car when one of the families came out, dressed for a wedding. I dropped my soapy sponge and ran over to gush over them, telling them how gorgeous they looked. After they drove off I realized the stark comparison between us... me with my hair sticking out every which way, braless in a ratty tee and pajama pants, tattoos fully on display, and them all looking like they just descended from heaven. Their traditional clothing is absolutely stunning and a joy to behold.

Seriously, so many of these styles are downright enviable.

Even in casual wear, I find it beautiful. As well as comfortable!

In first grade we had to wear shorts on Gym day, and take off our skirts. Some of us thought we’d bypass the shorts by wearing tights. But shortly into the school year we were told we had to wear shorts; the tights were probably a bit too sheer even if they were colored tights. A pre-Lululemon situation?

We just didn't wear dresses in elementary school, at least virtually never. It was the 70s, era of the ERA and bra-burning (not for elementary school kids, of course, but that was the backdrop).

Bpath, salwar kameez is what I've always hear for that look. I think kurti/kurta is the tunic, salwar alone refers to the trousers.

Equally fab on the dudes.

Even the baby next door wears her tiny finery.

Thank you, cawaps, I was using kurti because it came up in my image search! I think kameez and kurta/i might be the source words for our words chemise and skirt, although it could be the other way around.

Ida, fab on the dudes is right!

No, just no. I don't even like leggings with an actual dress - other than a dress that is too short to be worn on its own. More like a tunic. (Ida, that first ethnic outfit is gorgeous!)

It's a hard look to pull off successfully, in my opinion. It just takes a sleek(ish) silhouette and breaks it in two. Do you ever choose to wear a dress alone? I bet you'd rock that look.

My dresses are my shirts. That is the only thing I wear with pants. I do sometimes wear dresses without pants but I never wear pants without dress.

Yes, it is called Shalwar Kameez. Kate Middleton wore it during her trip to Pakistan last year.

Kate Middleton wows in bespoke turquoise shalwar kameez by Catherine Walker, as she kicks off Pakistan Tour with Prince William

https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/10134065/kate-middleton-salwar-kameez-pakistan-tour/

I would never wear the American adaptation of it. And I don't like Kate Middleton's British version of it.

Perhaps it's the rebellious child in me but I love it. However I try to match a colour in the short skirt or dress to the leggings or jeggings that I'm wearing. It is a very very common thing here. Women wear dresses or skirts and leggings all winter. I would not wear a dress or a skirt if I couldn't completely cover up my legs. And I like dresses and skirts. To each their own.

I love Kate's outfit in that picture. Looks classic and comfortable.

So this morning I'm looking around church, and not only do I see a couple of little girls in dresses over pants, but a couple of women as well. I'm liking it. (Not to mention all of us in black robes with pants underneath. )

It wouldn’t be something I would wear but I think it can look nice.

Last night is the first time I had seen this pant/dress combo style. I met up with a friend for dinner and that was her outfit. My friend looked lovely. She carries her weight around the hips and backside and her more streamline monochromatic pairing was very slimming and stylish.

I truly dislike the jean pairings above though.

It can look nice. Depends obviously on the particular match-up.

Right now I own one dress, so it's a moot issue in my closet. (Okay, I do own some peasant-oriented medieval garb from my medieval re-creation days, but that also wouldn't work with pants or jeans - although maybe black leggings.)

Not for me...my legs are disproportionately short for the rest of my body so anything that adds more horizontal cuts only makes me look shorter, not to mention the bulk the pants would add around my hips. As it is, even with leggings, tops will stick around my butt and make it look even larger, so I don't go there.

Barring something ethnic, it’s a no for me, especially the jeans under a dress. It looks too bulky and like somebody changed their mind in the middle of getting dressed but forgot to take something off.

I do recall some girls wearing pants under dresses in winter when I was in grade school. They had to travel by bus to school and it was cold. Girls didn’t wear pants back in the dark ages then so they looked pretty warm. The rest of us had our knee socks or tights.

Interesting how some examples are very elegant and other's are reminiscent of the grunge look. I does remind me of school children dressed for outside in the winter. That's where I saw most of this look--back in the day. I don't think I could pull it off w/o looking like the biggest frump in the room, so would pass.

postwar time in Germany

IMHO the elegant example are not dresses, they are jackets.

Not exactly a dress, but Princess Eugenie wears it well